Battleships period. My top would be the Missouri. Aside from Japan’s surrender taking place aboard her my oldest son was born in Missouri on Sept 2. He thinks it’s pretty cool his birthday is on a plaque on the deck of his states namestake warship. He even runs around with a Mighty Mo hat on his head.

Italiansarecoming the word you’re looking for is Musashi. As far as Axis ships I like the Shinano. She was a carrier built on a Yamato hull. She put to sea loaded with Shinyo suicide boats and Ohka rocket bombs. Now comes my favorite part of this story. The next day the US sank her.

28 NOV 44 1330 Shinano departs Yokosuka for Kure.
29 NOV 44 0309 four torpedoes from USS Archerfish slam into the Shinano.
29 NOV 44 1057 Captain Abe (Shinano’s captain) goes down with his ship.
She was at sea for 21 hours and 27 minutes. This is one of my favorite night night stories.

I guess I should have worded the question “Is the Sherman under-rated?” I was thinking more of the negative a modern day armchair general comments I’ve heard and read about the thing. I know our enemies and allies had an appreciation for the Sherman. It might not have been the perfect tank but it was the right tank at the right time. Even if it was too tall.

I saw that Tiger before when I was looking for R/C tanks for my boys. They ended up with a set of 1/16 Airsoft Panthers. Very cool. My favorite toys we have right now would have to be our 1/32 slot car track. When we set the whole thing up it’s over 100 feet long. It takes up a lot of floor space to say the least.

Airsoft all the way. If I’m gonna play army I want my guns to look and feel real. I have a TM M16A2 with an M203 on it.

Although it was a dive bomber I picked the Stuka. That plane simply has that “it” factor. Since I couldn’t narrow it down to 3 I just stuck with 1 vote. My number 2 would be the B-29. I particular I like the Enola Gay and Bach’s Car.

I voted Turkey for the same location reasons already pointed out. I think just having Turkey joining the Axis would have been better then both Turkey and Spain joining. Spain was drained after it’s civil war and could not hope the guard it’s considerable coastline. The drain on Germany to help guard this would have been a detriment. Spain not being known for it’s overabunance of natural resources would not have made this drain very beneficial.

Americans tend to be a bit harse about being, and having the best. Because the Sherman was outclassed by Hitler and Stalin’s giant metal monsters we beat on the poor thing a little hard. We after all want everything we have to be better than everything everyone else has.

Compare the Sherman to other medium tanks of the era and it doesn’t do badly. Yes the first version got the well deserved nick name “Tommy cooker”. Yes it was too tall. In fact the overall shape needed a little help. This was the result of someone saying they wanted it to be narrow. The short barreled 75mm M2 gun wasn’t the best choice of main armament. Heck I don’t even like the vertical volute spring suspension.

When upguuned with the 76mm M1 gun the Sherman became a more serious threat on the battlefield. She was easy to build on large quantities. Let’s not forget Stalin’s famous quote about quantiity. We have to remember the enormity of US WW2 factories. Shutting one down to retool for a new heavy tank would have had a big effect on the battlefield.

The Sherman’s maxium armor thickness measured favorably against other medium tanks of the day. The front plate was set at a decent angle. (The degree escapes me right now) The mechanical reliability of the Sherman was far superior to that of the larger tanks built by other countries.

Even though I’m no fan of the Sherman I voted yes in my poll.

I hope this sparks some discussion about the USA’s technological, and industrial capabilities, along with her war aims.

Dezrtfish I didn’t try shooting the Enfield the way you discribe but I can picture it being done. Two things are going to keep me from trying that for a while. First the SMLE I fired was my ex-brother-in-law’s. Second my torn rotator cuff. No bolt action for a while. Don’t get me wrong though I think the Enfield is a fine bolt action weapon. I just prefer the 03.

I have to ammend my last post. I can’t think too fast. One of my many faults.

The vehicle I was thinking of was not a Studebaker truck. It was a Packard car. In 1938 (I think) Packard sold some tooling to the Soviets. With this Stalin’s crew made copies of one of Packards models. This ended for a while because of some uninvited German guests. After the war production continued until the late '50s. The engine was reliable enough to have suppodedly found it’s way into some trucks. These engines had Packard on the valve covers.

My confusion/stupidity came from the fact the Soviets received a huge amount of Studebaker trucks thanks to lend/lease. These trucks were so popular some Russians started using the word Studebaker as a generic term for truck.

Legion 3 the tank I mentioned was near the top of the hill. The ground leveled off at one point before continuing upward towards the crest. Going up the hill the T54/55 would have been on your left. Not a scratch on it. Unfortunately some a$$hole stole the pictures the pictures I took there or I would have scanned a couple a posted them.

To anyone interested in how whacked out a T34 can look check this out.

http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t-34_series/t34-series.html

Look at the T34 HU Firefighting, and the Syrian T34/122. Thinking about the Egypian 122 SPG reminded me of the Syrian version. So I googled and found this site.

I agree with dezrtfish. The '03 is just edged out by the Kar 98. I wonder if the three people who voted for the Enfield have fired it and the ‘03 seein’ as how the '03 only has one vote right now.